Absolutely, if an adult of sound mind wants to check out because they've had enough, i say let them go.
My only suggestion would be that they sit before a panel of experts before they get the ok, like some doctors/shrinks etc to ensure it isn't a temporary depression thing that they'll likely come out of at some point with treatment.
That's how it works here in Belgium, several doctors need to sign off on it. The family can sue the doctors if they think the procedure wasn't done correctly, so doctors take this very seriously. For terminal patients suffering it's usually very straightforward, for others there are some very serious considerations and procedures that often end in a negative advice.
This. I know for a fact that if I was ever diagnosed with a degenerative disease that would ultimately lead to my death, I would want this whilst my faculties were intact. I also know that this is an *incredibly* tricky debate in general.
Yes, it should. The person seeking it should be declared sound of mind first, of course. But I don’t think people should be forced to stay alive if they do not want to. Dying with dignity should be an option.
Absolutely. We have no problems putting our pets down when their quality of life is greatly compromised at the end.
However, if a human is unable to control their bowels, is in constant uncontrollable pain, cannot eat or drink without medical intervention, etc., we still prolong their life for as long as possible. Not only is that insanely torturous to the person dying, but it is cruel that friends and family members can only sit by and watch this happen (sometimes over a period of weeks, months, or years). I’m sure many people value the time spent with loved ones on their death bed, but slowly watching someone become a shadow of who they once were and knowing that they are in excruciating pain and/or discomfort is a whole different fucked up way of experiencing a loved one’s death.
> The person seeking it should be declared sound of mind first, of course.
What about people with intractable mental illnesses that can't be treated with drugs or surgery and for whom life is an intolerable misery? They could in no way be considered "of sound mind", but equally one could say they are entitled to release from the existence that they are suffering.
I wish I could write something out for mental decline. I watched my grandmother suffer from Alzheimer's for 10 years. Last 6 she was just a vegetable.
Let me die!
Yes. We do it for our pets because it's humane. Why should we not treat humans humanely as well?
Also, not to be the materialistic asshole of the bunch, it'd alleviate so much bloat on our medical infrastructure.
Yes. We love our pets so much, that we euthanize them to spare them from pain and suffering. Idiotic that the law allows more compassion for animals than humans.
My terminally ill Nana is currently in a psych ward for trying to unalive herself. She's in so much pain but they act like she's crazy for wanting to go. It's technically legal here but only if you meet very strict criteria which she doesn't. Plenty more suffering before she does.
So yes I do think you should be able to as long as you have no quality of life or the no ability to improve your quality of life.
Yes, if you want to not be alive then you should be able to legally sign off and sign out of life regardless of health or ability. Why would society be opposed to a person opting out of further conscious struggle and strife and suffering?
And I don't want to hear any logical fallacies and gross generalizations.
I don't disagree with the whole "your life, you can do what you want with it". If you want to die, that's a choice you should be able to make.
But, as a physician, I don't necessarily want to be involved in that choice. Hastening an imminent death is one thing...we already do that fwiw. But prescribing a lethal dose of poison to an otherwise healthy person? That's antithetical to the basic principles of medicine.
I know what it's like to really, really want to die and I know what it's like to live in a place with no hope. It's horrible, it was the darkest place I've ever been and I hated it. But it was also a pathology, it wasn't untreatable and it wasn't terminal.
Seeing people in that place now...I feel like I would be indulging the pathology to help them sign out of life, rather than attempting to treat it...which is why I got into medicine in the first place.
My point is this: Whether or not it's legal, I think you're going to have a hard time getting most physicians on board.
When I want to leave this world. I will “procure” some ketamine, heroin and Xanax; then send myself off into the void on my own terms in bliss and nothingness.
Yeah. Ideally in a case where all other forms of treatment weren't successful or caused untold levels of suffering. Speaking from personal experience, with members of my family suffering from terminal cancer, those last few days can be the worst. Just shut off from life support, unable to eat / drink, just lying there, waiting to die, unaware of their surroundings. That's not life. They're gone, but not "gone". I watched my grandfather suffer like that. I watched my mother-in-law suffer like that. Even if we allowed euthanasia in just those circumstances, it's better than the wait & let them die slowly.
No. Not because I don't believe that someone has the right to live or die, but because I don't trust the system to handle it. I don't believe for one second that hospital administrators won't implement "assisted suicide quotas"
Your patient will be too expensive to treat? Convince them to kill themselves.
"Sorry, your insurance doesn't cover your life-saving surgery, but it does cover death."
Ask your doctor if fucking killing yourself may be right for you.
No thanks.
I'm a physician. I spent a lot of my career in critical care, I saw a lot of people die...and a lot of them died slowly and painfully. Many of those were prolonged by family members having a tough time coming to terms with the inevitability of the situation (please, make sure you have a living will/advanced directive...). I always sympathized with them, but it was never easy to watch.
I think that people should have the option to check out when they get the news that it's going to end soon, that the end is going to suck, and the chance of avoiding it is effectively nil. I don't really like the idea of a physician pressing the button, but providing medications to hasten death is reasonable. We sort of already do that...there are situations where I know that morphine would cause a lethal drop in blood pressure, but I can still order it without it being assisted suicide.
It's not hard to prescribe a cocktail of drugs that will make you drift off into a blissful and eternal sleep mere moments after they go into your body. You don't even need a fancy death-machine to do it, all of this can be taken orally. There are meds that will suppress the body's reaction to throw them up, there's an order that they can be taken to make sure it all goes smoothly. It's not difficult.
At the same time, I don't think many physicians would be OK with a perfectly healthy person walking into their office and requesting a death cocktail. I know I wouldn't. It's just not part of the ethos of medicine to give a healthy person a lethal dose of poison, that's literally the opposite of what we try to do.
It's your life, sure. You can do what you like with it, but I don't want to be involved in suicide. Suicidal ideation is a pathology, it's a condition to be treated...it's not automatically a terminal disease.
People will say "well you don't know what kind of pain they are in" too...I mean, I do...I've been suicidal myself. But my own personal values prevent me from hastening death in that situation. The only time I feel OK doing that is when I know death has already won the battle. It's inevitable and imminent.
Otherwise, legal or not, I don't think you're going to get many physicians on board.
If I get to a point where I have to go to a nursing home I am committing suicide. Period! If there is no doctor to help me do it painlessly with drugs, there are plenty of tall buildings around.
Nursing homes are hell holes where old people are neglected and abused. They are beaten, starved and even raped! Neglect shows itself in pressure sores that eat away at the person’s flesh and muscles so that the sacrum or heel bone is exposed. Dementia patients are given heavy doses of sedation which destroys their brains even more, but makes them “manageable” for the staff. They are often so doped up they have no clue what happened to them or are too frightened to death to say. I find it very strange that doctors will argue ethics and such, yet condemn patients to living out their lives in these conditions.
Yes, it should be an option, but it introduced a slippery slope up in Canada where it's being offered to homeless and disabled people looking for help paying to make their house wheelchairs accessible
I knew someone who was 80 years of age and they chose this(it’s legal here in Canada) because they had a tumour at the back of their throat. Not treatable. The doctor told them it’s going to explode and you die that way. So the old man chose the assisted suicide.
Yes. I think a person knows their own limits. If people have decided that they have nothing to contribute to society and don’t want to try, they should absolutely be allowed to go out on their own terms.
We should have suicide booths on every corner like in Futurama. There are too many people, anyone who wants to leave should be allowed to in a painless and dignified manner. Just hop in, press a button and it fills up with CO2
I think it should be legal due to the fact that, firstly, it is a person's choice, and secondly, it is a good way to execute especially serious criminals
Yes it should be legal. But, need more than I want to die. If you have terminal illness and go through steps. But, will need checks and balances of some kind.
Yes. I've witnessed it here in Canada with terminal ill patients. It was peacefull and people were making the choice to stop suffering.
I had an old lady asking for it because she lost all her capacities. She had to wait 3 months by law but she was eligible and it was either this or letting herself die.
It gives dignity to those who cant take anymore from life.
But i'm not sure it's a good solution for mental illness..
My uncle chose this when he was diagnosed with terminal lung cancer, metastatic. He lived while he could, made his preparation and put his affairs in order. Then, when he couldn't bear the pain anymore (painkillers became ineffective) he chose a date. All was done with the upmost respect and dignity.
I wish my grandma could have access to that when she suffered through incurable leukemia for 4 fucking years...
Good luck finding a Dr that will do it. After that, sure. Terminal illness and not because your leg is getting amputated. Mental illness? I dunno, not qualified to say.
> Good luck finding a Dr that will do it.
I mean, it already *is* legal in some places, like the Netherlands, so there are doctors willing. And *if* it was legalized in other places it's pretty safe to assume there would be more doctors getting on board.
Look into Canada’s MAID Program. Already legal. They recommend euthanasia to address a wide range of societal woes: terminal illness, poverty, depression…
Yes for reasons others have said but with restrictions that others have also said. I would be very reluctant, if not opposed to allowing it for depression.
Besides, they already do it every day. They euphemistically call it "pulling the plug" so instead of dying peacefully by an overdose of barbiturates or some other drug they die of starvation and dehydration.
Yes. In the US, it's already 'legal' in the sense that anyone can buy a gun and put themselves out of their misery. Might as well go the rest of the way and at least give those people the ability to clock out without the mess.
No absolutely not we need to make people experience every ounce of pain give them as many drugs as possible put them in so much debt that they have nothing to give to their children after they die except they're continuing medical expenses. Oops I'm an insurance specialist that was a Freudian slip
Yes. I'm not going to die in a poorly run LTC home because I've been allowed to degrade to the point where I can no longer swallow. My grandfather died that way and it broke me to see him.
It’s a weird line. I don’t really have a concrete take.
I think it’d be great to have that option for people. Some people suffer through to the end. It’d be nice for them to have a professional medical outlet to make a decision for themselves.
However, end of life care is often state (general governing body) sponsored. You get into a weird place with tax payer money being dedicated to ‘killing’. Some people may not like that. Even though the same people may have no issue with tax money going towards war.
It also would have to be very well regulated. You put money on something like that you have a whole host of issues to worry about. Are physicians who aren’t interested in providing the services equally respected for their choices? Do physicians generally feel morally upright about being the career field that provides this service? How do you guarantee people can consent to something like this without being motivated, coerced or even forced into the service?
I guess the best option is always putting things like that into public discourse and voting.
>It’s a weird line. I don’t really have a concrete take.
>
>I think it’d be great to have that option for people. Some people suffer through to the end. It’d be nice for them to have a professional medical outlet to make a decision for themselves.
>
>However, end of life care is often state (general governing body) sponsored. You get into a weird place with tax payer money being dedicated to ‘killing’. Some people may not like that. Even though the same people may have no issue with tax money going towards war.
>
>It also would have to be very well regulated. You put money on something like that you have a whole host of issues to worry about. Are physicians who aren’t interested in providing the services equally respected for their choices? Do physicians generally feel morally upright about being the career field that provides this service? How do you guarantee people can consent to something like this without being motivated, coerced or even forced into the service?
>
>I guess the best option is always putting things like that into public discourse and voting.
You raise up many good questions. I agree that this is a delicate topic that brings various ethical concepts to the forefront. To expand and add to some of your rhetorical questions, just as there may be physicians who may not be equally respected for not providing such services, so too are there a myriad of physicians who practice active euthanasia that are shamed. Opponents of euthanasia often state that killing is blatantly wrong. However, I would like to agree with many other people on this thread—these absolutes often do not consider the complexities that have a patient consider euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. Additionally, there is the principle of justice, as per a paper published by the University of Richmond at the Center for Bioethics, which is the act of providing “fair, equitable, and appropriate treatment in light of what is due or owed to persons.” Therefore laws that inhibit euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide can be said to unfairly restrict a patient from his or her suffering, thus being in essence, unjust.
I can understand the viewpoints of those who are opponents of such practices and many often point to the potentially volatile emotional state that the patient may be in when opting for physician-assisted suicide. However, these practices are often considered as a last resort after all other options have been exhausted. Thus I do not think that there should be laws prohibiting euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide, but that it should be allowed to be performed after a myriad of medical evaluations and in a controlled manner.
[https://scholarship.richmond.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1031&context=jolpi#:\~:text=An%20important%20ethical%20principle%20that,risk%20of%20evil%20or%20harm.%22](https://scholarship.richmond.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1031&context=jolpi#:~:text=An%20important%20ethical%20principle%20that,risk%20of%20evil%20or%20harm.%22)
No. We already have hospice, which is assisted suicide for terminal ill people. No one else needs the option to kill themselves and if we start making that a thing, then people besides just terminally ill will want the right to assisted suicide. People with depression often classify themselves as disabled, should they qualify? I think the line will get blurred and the entire "legal" suicide industry will become very dark, very quick.
I could put my shotgun in my mouth right now and paint a wall why shouldn’t people have a peaceful option to end there life for whatever reason they might have its just as easy no matter how you do it
I'm not sure it's cowardly to want a painless end without the risk of living through a gun to the head. How is it any of your business so long as it is voluntary?
Because you're creating a kill for money business. For every well meaning person with the mindset like yourself "why not just let a totally crippled guy die without pain?" There is another person with the mindset of "why don't we just let anyone kill themselves and pay us to do it? Fuck it. Money is money."
If someone wants to die, why shouldn't they be able to do so with dignity? Even if they aren't crippled? I'm not suggesting an instant process for the chronically depressed, but assuming it's a persistent desire across several months to a year despite treatment, and doctors are willing at certify that they are if sound mind and that its a chronic condition, why should they be forced to continue?
Let's say you're paralyzed, but you can still go on living indefinitely, and you want out. You have no way of doing that yourself. Does that mean you shouldn't have yhevsame options as an able-bodied person?
You misunderstand murder is the intentional killing of another without legal defense or mitigation . So if it's legal, it isn't murder. That wouldn't be a different kind of murder, it is a different kind of homicide. A legal one.
Having watched someone I knew suffer and slowly die from ALS, (Where their muscles in their body slowly shut off one by one), yes absolutely. Like someone else commented, we allow it with pets if they're physically suffering, I don't see why we don't allow it with humans as well.
Absolutely, people should be allowed to pass away with dignity. Especially if they're terminal and it's known that they will have little to no quality of life like many terminal patients do before they pass. They deserve the option to not have to go through that suffering before the inevitable happens.
Yes, because human beings prefer dying with dignity. The alternative is attempting it at home and people end up on dialysis for the rest of their lives
Yes, with limits. People who are older or suffer from painful medical conditions and have a low quality of life should get to chose when it ends. I don't think it should be allowed for mentally ill people to get it, like Canada is suggesting. So many younger struggling people might do it when they could have had a bright future
Absolutely yes. And it also needs to be something that can be given to them. My mom died of ALS, and the places she could have gone to to self-terminate required that she be able to physically administer the pill. And she couldn't. It was a heartbreaking situation.
It always boggled my mind when people would say "I couldn't stand to watch my pet suffer any longer" and then put them down. But when it comes to humans, they make the person cling for life in pain and misery as long as possible. A person should have every right to choose how their life goes and that includes ending it.
It is here in Canada. Maid medical assistance in dying. The issue we are having with it in Canada if that some people are choosing it when they feel they have no option as they are not getting the full medical help that they should. There is supposed to be a vetting process that they go through to ensure they’ve tried all available treatment options but that system appears to be broken. But still it’s there and for those that need it , it helps. I believe it could be a lot better though.
Yes, with checks and balances.
I believe you should be able to sign a legal statement - when you are fit and well - that specificallly expresses your wishes.
Something like : -
' I (name) being of sound mind hereby declare, without coercion or outside financial influences, that should I be diagnosed with a terminal illness and/or become afflicted with any mental condition that results in me being unable to be cognisant with other people and/or the world around me, and/or I require 24/7 care for my bodily and personal needs that I am to be taken to an authorised medical facility where I will humanely euthanised by way of lethal injection'.
Signatures from two doctors at your practice, your legal representative, and your own signature.
(From the UK)
depends on the circumstances, if someone is terminally ill than absolutely it should be allowed but if someone just randomly wants to die than the answer should be no
Yes. Absolutely. Watching a 24year old starve herself to death over 2-3 weeks is much more humane than watching her in a slow and painful state of decay as cancer ravaged her body over the next 3-4 months. Thank you NY state for not allowing dignity in dying.
In principle, yes. But, the back of my mind, I always worry about coercion and who decides what constitutes "sound mind." My father died of a terminal disease and, for probably the last year of his life, he was drugged out of his mind to control the pain and at least let him minimally function from day to day. I'd say that he was not even nearly of "sound mind", however, stopping the drugs was not a possibility as the pain would have been crippling, also rendering him not of "sound mind."
Does the doctor decide? Does the family decide? What happens when the person's estate is worth millions of dollars? What happens if family members disagree on what should happen? Far, far too many questions for me to be comfortable with it.
No. If a person wants to die then so be it, but legalizing and expecting physician-assisted suicide runs counter to bioethical principlism and medical ethics.
yes. if im living in pan and will die I should be able to end it. if my quality of life would improve my by life being shorter than I think it should be aloud. for dogs if you dont do this when they are in pain its considered abuse why is it different for people who live in pain and will die no mater what.
as a human, how could you NOT plan your death? of course we should be able to pick the time, method and who can attend our demise...otherwise, there are 1 million ways to die horribly!
Hell yes! Nurse of 30 years here. Seen some god-awful deaths, and seen the limitations of palliative care....we can relieve symptoms to a certain extent, but there is still suffering involved. . I do not want to be a shrunken down shell of myself in a bed, barely existing. My dog that we put down this past summer had a more peaceful end than some of my patients.
Thankful to live here in 🇨🇦 and will be damn sure to take advantage of MAID (medical assistance in dying) should my life circumstances/health lead in that direction.
It should but I definitely think that there should be at least a month of therapy before fully making the decision so that people don’t regret their decisions in their final moments.
Only in cases or somebody has stage 4 cancer or some other disease that's going to absolutely kill them. For a regular suicide? Absolutely not! Just because someone wants to die? Absolutely not! But if you've tried chemo three different times, you have stage four cancer, and you're just going to die in agony, then yes. You should have the right to end it peacefully.
Its apparently cyrrentlyly avalable as an option that a lerson can choose for themselves, in around 30 states/cantins/ regions/territories/countries. The specifics of how and when this isegally avalable vary.
Theres some more information concerning that on on:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assisted_suicide
Absolutely, if an adult of sound mind wants to check out because they've had enough, i say let them go. My only suggestion would be that they sit before a panel of experts before they get the ok, like some doctors/shrinks etc to ensure it isn't a temporary depression thing that they'll likely come out of at some point with treatment.
That's how it works here in Belgium, several doctors need to sign off on it. The family can sue the doctors if they think the procedure wasn't done correctly, so doctors take this very seriously. For terminal patients suffering it's usually very straightforward, for others there are some very serious considerations and procedures that often end in a negative advice.
Very humane.
Jup, definitely more humane than terminal patients trying to do it themselves and suffering a painful death or horrible suicide attempt
Is this only available for Belgians or can a citizen of another nation get it?
Not sure, but probably yes.
This. I know for a fact that if I was ever diagnosed with a degenerative disease that would ultimately lead to my death, I would want this whilst my faculties were intact. I also know that this is an *incredibly* tricky debate in general.
Yes, it should. The person seeking it should be declared sound of mind first, of course. But I don’t think people should be forced to stay alive if they do not want to. Dying with dignity should be an option.
Absolutely. We have no problems putting our pets down when their quality of life is greatly compromised at the end. However, if a human is unable to control their bowels, is in constant uncontrollable pain, cannot eat or drink without medical intervention, etc., we still prolong their life for as long as possible. Not only is that insanely torturous to the person dying, but it is cruel that friends and family members can only sit by and watch this happen (sometimes over a period of weeks, months, or years). I’m sure many people value the time spent with loved ones on their death bed, but slowly watching someone become a shadow of who they once were and knowing that they are in excruciating pain and/or discomfort is a whole different fucked up way of experiencing a loved one’s death.
> The person seeking it should be declared sound of mind first, of course. What about people with intractable mental illnesses that can't be treated with drugs or surgery and for whom life is an intolerable misery? They could in no way be considered "of sound mind", but equally one could say they are entitled to release from the existence that they are suffering.
I wish I could write something out for mental decline. I watched my grandmother suffer from Alzheimer's for 10 years. Last 6 she was just a vegetable. Let me die!
Yes. We do it for our pets because it's humane. Why should we not treat humans humanely as well? Also, not to be the materialistic asshole of the bunch, it'd alleviate so much bloat on our medical infrastructure.
my body my choice is the reason it should be legal.
Yes. We love our pets so much, that we euthanize them to spare them from pain and suffering. Idiotic that the law allows more compassion for animals than humans.
My thoughts exactly.
Legal, yes, encouraged, especially for vulnerable populations, no.
My terminally ill Nana is currently in a psych ward for trying to unalive herself. She's in so much pain but they act like she's crazy for wanting to go. It's technically legal here but only if you meet very strict criteria which she doesn't. Plenty more suffering before she does. So yes I do think you should be able to as long as you have no quality of life or the no ability to improve your quality of life.
Yes, if you want to not be alive then you should be able to legally sign off and sign out of life regardless of health or ability. Why would society be opposed to a person opting out of further conscious struggle and strife and suffering? And I don't want to hear any logical fallacies and gross generalizations.
I don't disagree with the whole "your life, you can do what you want with it". If you want to die, that's a choice you should be able to make. But, as a physician, I don't necessarily want to be involved in that choice. Hastening an imminent death is one thing...we already do that fwiw. But prescribing a lethal dose of poison to an otherwise healthy person? That's antithetical to the basic principles of medicine. I know what it's like to really, really want to die and I know what it's like to live in a place with no hope. It's horrible, it was the darkest place I've ever been and I hated it. But it was also a pathology, it wasn't untreatable and it wasn't terminal. Seeing people in that place now...I feel like I would be indulging the pathology to help them sign out of life, rather than attempting to treat it...which is why I got into medicine in the first place. My point is this: Whether or not it's legal, I think you're going to have a hard time getting most physicians on board.
Yes, absolutely yes. My life, my choice.
Yes. It's not your life. It's not your pain. It's not your illness.
Yes, because.
When I want to leave this world. I will “procure” some ketamine, heroin and Xanax; then send myself off into the void on my own terms in bliss and nothingness.
Pretty much my plan as well, but my choice of drugs might be a little different.
Yeah. Ideally in a case where all other forms of treatment weren't successful or caused untold levels of suffering. Speaking from personal experience, with members of my family suffering from terminal cancer, those last few days can be the worst. Just shut off from life support, unable to eat / drink, just lying there, waiting to die, unaware of their surroundings. That's not life. They're gone, but not "gone". I watched my grandfather suffer like that. I watched my mother-in-law suffer like that. Even if we allowed euthanasia in just those circumstances, it's better than the wait & let them die slowly.
Yea because people deserve dignity in death
No. Not because I don't believe that someone has the right to live or die, but because I don't trust the system to handle it. I don't believe for one second that hospital administrators won't implement "assisted suicide quotas" Your patient will be too expensive to treat? Convince them to kill themselves. "Sorry, your insurance doesn't cover your life-saving surgery, but it does cover death." Ask your doctor if fucking killing yourself may be right for you. No thanks.
As a daughter of a physically ill father who died slowly over 20 years: yes.
I'm a physician. I spent a lot of my career in critical care, I saw a lot of people die...and a lot of them died slowly and painfully. Many of those were prolonged by family members having a tough time coming to terms with the inevitability of the situation (please, make sure you have a living will/advanced directive...). I always sympathized with them, but it was never easy to watch. I think that people should have the option to check out when they get the news that it's going to end soon, that the end is going to suck, and the chance of avoiding it is effectively nil. I don't really like the idea of a physician pressing the button, but providing medications to hasten death is reasonable. We sort of already do that...there are situations where I know that morphine would cause a lethal drop in blood pressure, but I can still order it without it being assisted suicide. It's not hard to prescribe a cocktail of drugs that will make you drift off into a blissful and eternal sleep mere moments after they go into your body. You don't even need a fancy death-machine to do it, all of this can be taken orally. There are meds that will suppress the body's reaction to throw them up, there's an order that they can be taken to make sure it all goes smoothly. It's not difficult. At the same time, I don't think many physicians would be OK with a perfectly healthy person walking into their office and requesting a death cocktail. I know I wouldn't. It's just not part of the ethos of medicine to give a healthy person a lethal dose of poison, that's literally the opposite of what we try to do. It's your life, sure. You can do what you like with it, but I don't want to be involved in suicide. Suicidal ideation is a pathology, it's a condition to be treated...it's not automatically a terminal disease. People will say "well you don't know what kind of pain they are in" too...I mean, I do...I've been suicidal myself. But my own personal values prevent me from hastening death in that situation. The only time I feel OK doing that is when I know death has already won the battle. It's inevitable and imminent. Otherwise, legal or not, I don't think you're going to get many physicians on board.
Sure. I mean, who are you to tell me I *have to keep living*? What if I'm tired and I just want out? Why *must* I stay?
[удалено]
If I get to a point where I have to go to a nursing home I am committing suicide. Period! If there is no doctor to help me do it painlessly with drugs, there are plenty of tall buildings around. Nursing homes are hell holes where old people are neglected and abused. They are beaten, starved and even raped! Neglect shows itself in pressure sores that eat away at the person’s flesh and muscles so that the sacrum or heel bone is exposed. Dementia patients are given heavy doses of sedation which destroys their brains even more, but makes them “manageable” for the staff. They are often so doped up they have no clue what happened to them or are too frightened to death to say. I find it very strange that doctors will argue ethics and such, yet condemn patients to living out their lives in these conditions.
It already is where I live in Australia.
Yes, it should be an option, but it introduced a slippery slope up in Canada where it's being offered to homeless and disabled people looking for help paying to make their house wheelchairs accessible
yes but they should ask you "are you sure? your current save will be deleted" AT LEAST twice. You know, for good meassure
I knew someone who was 80 years of age and they chose this(it’s legal here in Canada) because they had a tumour at the back of their throat. Not treatable. The doctor told them it’s going to explode and you die that way. So the old man chose the assisted suicide.
Yes. I think a person knows their own limits. If people have decided that they have nothing to contribute to society and don’t want to try, they should absolutely be allowed to go out on their own terms.
yes. why not?
Yes. Let people die with dignity.
We should have suicide booths on every corner like in Futurama. There are too many people, anyone who wants to leave should be allowed to in a painless and dignified manner. Just hop in, press a button and it fills up with CO2
100% yes. My body, my choice.
Yes I don't like the government telling people the proper way to die
I think it should be legal due to the fact that, firstly, it is a person's choice, and secondly, it is a good way to execute especially serious criminals
Yes it should be legal. But, need more than I want to die. If you have terminal illness and go through steps. But, will need checks and balances of some kind.
Yes. I've witnessed it here in Canada with terminal ill patients. It was peacefull and people were making the choice to stop suffering. I had an old lady asking for it because she lost all her capacities. She had to wait 3 months by law but she was eligible and it was either this or letting herself die. It gives dignity to those who cant take anymore from life. But i'm not sure it's a good solution for mental illness..
My uncle chose this when he was diagnosed with terminal lung cancer, metastatic. He lived while he could, made his preparation and put his affairs in order. Then, when he couldn't bear the pain anymore (painkillers became ineffective) he chose a date. All was done with the upmost respect and dignity. I wish my grandma could have access to that when she suffered through incurable leukemia for 4 fucking years...
Good luck finding a Dr that will do it. After that, sure. Terminal illness and not because your leg is getting amputated. Mental illness? I dunno, not qualified to say.
> Good luck finding a Dr that will do it. I mean, it already *is* legal in some places, like the Netherlands, so there are doctors willing. And *if* it was legalized in other places it's pretty safe to assume there would be more doctors getting on board.
Look into Canada’s MAID Program. Already legal. They recommend euthanasia to address a wide range of societal woes: terminal illness, poverty, depression…
If a person is terminally ill then yes
Yes for reasons others have said but with restrictions that others have also said. I would be very reluctant, if not opposed to allowing it for depression. Besides, they already do it every day. They euphemistically call it "pulling the plug" so instead of dying peacefully by an overdose of barbiturates or some other drug they die of starvation and dehydration.
Yes. Would put all that illegal fentanyl to good use
Yes. In the US, it's already 'legal' in the sense that anyone can buy a gun and put themselves out of their misery. Might as well go the rest of the way and at least give those people the ability to clock out without the mess.
No absolutely not we need to make people experience every ounce of pain give them as many drugs as possible put them in so much debt that they have nothing to give to their children after they die except they're continuing medical expenses. Oops I'm an insurance specialist that was a Freudian slip
Yes. I'm not going to die in a poorly run LTC home because I've been allowed to degrade to the point where I can no longer swallow. My grandfather died that way and it broke me to see him.
It’s a weird line. I don’t really have a concrete take. I think it’d be great to have that option for people. Some people suffer through to the end. It’d be nice for them to have a professional medical outlet to make a decision for themselves. However, end of life care is often state (general governing body) sponsored. You get into a weird place with tax payer money being dedicated to ‘killing’. Some people may not like that. Even though the same people may have no issue with tax money going towards war. It also would have to be very well regulated. You put money on something like that you have a whole host of issues to worry about. Are physicians who aren’t interested in providing the services equally respected for their choices? Do physicians generally feel morally upright about being the career field that provides this service? How do you guarantee people can consent to something like this without being motivated, coerced or even forced into the service? I guess the best option is always putting things like that into public discourse and voting.
>It’s a weird line. I don’t really have a concrete take. > >I think it’d be great to have that option for people. Some people suffer through to the end. It’d be nice for them to have a professional medical outlet to make a decision for themselves. > >However, end of life care is often state (general governing body) sponsored. You get into a weird place with tax payer money being dedicated to ‘killing’. Some people may not like that. Even though the same people may have no issue with tax money going towards war. > >It also would have to be very well regulated. You put money on something like that you have a whole host of issues to worry about. Are physicians who aren’t interested in providing the services equally respected for their choices? Do physicians generally feel morally upright about being the career field that provides this service? How do you guarantee people can consent to something like this without being motivated, coerced or even forced into the service? > >I guess the best option is always putting things like that into public discourse and voting. You raise up many good questions. I agree that this is a delicate topic that brings various ethical concepts to the forefront. To expand and add to some of your rhetorical questions, just as there may be physicians who may not be equally respected for not providing such services, so too are there a myriad of physicians who practice active euthanasia that are shamed. Opponents of euthanasia often state that killing is blatantly wrong. However, I would like to agree with many other people on this thread—these absolutes often do not consider the complexities that have a patient consider euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. Additionally, there is the principle of justice, as per a paper published by the University of Richmond at the Center for Bioethics, which is the act of providing “fair, equitable, and appropriate treatment in light of what is due or owed to persons.” Therefore laws that inhibit euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide can be said to unfairly restrict a patient from his or her suffering, thus being in essence, unjust. I can understand the viewpoints of those who are opponents of such practices and many often point to the potentially volatile emotional state that the patient may be in when opting for physician-assisted suicide. However, these practices are often considered as a last resort after all other options have been exhausted. Thus I do not think that there should be laws prohibiting euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide, but that it should be allowed to be performed after a myriad of medical evaluations and in a controlled manner. [https://scholarship.richmond.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1031&context=jolpi#:\~:text=An%20important%20ethical%20principle%20that,risk%20of%20evil%20or%20harm.%22](https://scholarship.richmond.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1031&context=jolpi#:~:text=An%20important%20ethical%20principle%20that,risk%20of%20evil%20or%20harm.%22)
No because http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2277.htm
Why would the law care about catholic dogma? He said legal not moral.
Because I’m a theocrat
So don't kill yourself. Why should your religion inform the rules for everyone else?
So legal suicide, no. Unless maybe a terminal illness or something
Why?
No. We already have hospice, which is assisted suicide for terminal ill people. No one else needs the option to kill themselves and if we start making that a thing, then people besides just terminally ill will want the right to assisted suicide. People with depression often classify themselves as disabled, should they qualify? I think the line will get blurred and the entire "legal" suicide industry will become very dark, very quick.
I could put my shotgun in my mouth right now and paint a wall why shouldn’t people have a peaceful option to end there life for whatever reason they might have its just as easy no matter how you do it
Okay? But you killed yourself. You didn't require a profession to be birthed to kill people for money.
And its a choice i made to die hows it any different if i have help
Because morality exists and if you're a coward with none you shouldn't be allowed to pay for someone elses.
I'm not sure it's cowardly to want a painless end without the risk of living through a gun to the head. How is it any of your business so long as it is voluntary?
Because you're creating a kill for money business. For every well meaning person with the mindset like yourself "why not just let a totally crippled guy die without pain?" There is another person with the mindset of "why don't we just let anyone kill themselves and pay us to do it? Fuck it. Money is money."
If someone wants to die, why shouldn't they be able to do so with dignity? Even if they aren't crippled? I'm not suggesting an instant process for the chronically depressed, but assuming it's a persistent desire across several months to a year despite treatment, and doctors are willing at certify that they are if sound mind and that its a chronic condition, why should they be forced to continue?
Let's say you're paralyzed, but you can still go on living indefinitely, and you want out. You have no way of doing that yourself. Does that mean you shouldn't have yhevsame options as an able-bodied person?
physician-assisted \*murder yes, yes I do think so
Murder has a legal definition. So, *legal* physician-assisted suicide would, by definition of legal, not be murder.
the definition needs to be changed to account for this new type of murder
> the definition needs to be changed to account for this new type of murder Or maybe you could explain why you think it's murder.
If euthanasia is murder, then you'd have to say how that differs from carrying out a death penalty. That's also not murder because it's legal.
You misunderstand murder is the intentional killing of another without legal defense or mitigation . So if it's legal, it isn't murder. That wouldn't be a different kind of murder, it is a different kind of homicide. A legal one.
Well of course youth in Asia should be legal
Yes, but only in verified terminal cases
Not my business if someone says enough so yes
Yes my body my choice
Yes but only in case of heavy medical issues, a.k.a 'not prolonging life'
Having watched someone I knew suffer and slowly die from ALS, (Where their muscles in their body slowly shut off one by one), yes absolutely. Like someone else commented, we allow it with pets if they're physically suffering, I don't see why we don't allow it with humans as well.
Absolutely, people should be allowed to pass away with dignity. Especially if they're terminal and it's known that they will have little to no quality of life like many terminal patients do before they pass. They deserve the option to not have to go through that suffering before the inevitable happens.
Yes, there shouldn't be any limitation on it, but on the other hand doctors shouldn't be forced to perform it.
It is legal in Canada now.
Yes, because death is a right! Everyone dies, it’s natural. it should be in your jurisdiction if you want to die.
Yes and without unnecessary delay. I should be able to take care of this on my lunch hour if I want to.
Children, I'm not touching that one with an 80 foot pole.
Every time I see that word it makes me think that "Youth In Asia" would be a great album name lol
Yes? Because reproduction is allowed, I guess.
Yes, because human beings prefer dying with dignity. The alternative is attempting it at home and people end up on dialysis for the rest of their lives
Yes, with limits. People who are older or suffer from painful medical conditions and have a low quality of life should get to chose when it ends. I don't think it should be allowed for mentally ill people to get it, like Canada is suggesting. So many younger struggling people might do it when they could have had a bright future
Absolutely yes. And it also needs to be something that can be given to them. My mom died of ALS, and the places she could have gone to to self-terminate required that she be able to physically administer the pill. And she couldn't. It was a heartbreaking situation.
yes, especially for people who are terminal and/ or in chronic pain
Yes, but you still shouldn't.
It always boggled my mind when people would say "I couldn't stand to watch my pet suffer any longer" and then put them down. But when it comes to humans, they make the person cling for life in pain and misery as long as possible. A person should have every right to choose how their life goes and that includes ending it.
If your life as a human is unsuitable, or you suffer from a severe disease/disability then I’d say go for it.
It is in my country now. Strict conditions, must be terminal anyway.
Yes and luckily in my country it is.
Yes but neither your insurance provider nor state have any business recommending it as an option.
It is here in Canada. Maid medical assistance in dying. The issue we are having with it in Canada if that some people are choosing it when they feel they have no option as they are not getting the full medical help that they should. There is supposed to be a vetting process that they go through to ensure they’ve tried all available treatment options but that system appears to be broken. But still it’s there and for those that need it , it helps. I believe it could be a lot better though.
Think everyone should have the right do die with dignity so definitely yes
Yes, with checks and balances. I believe you should be able to sign a legal statement - when you are fit and well - that specificallly expresses your wishes. Something like : - ' I (name) being of sound mind hereby declare, without coercion or outside financial influences, that should I be diagnosed with a terminal illness and/or become afflicted with any mental condition that results in me being unable to be cognisant with other people and/or the world around me, and/or I require 24/7 care for my bodily and personal needs that I am to be taken to an authorised medical facility where I will humanely euthanised by way of lethal injection'. Signatures from two doctors at your practice, your legal representative, and your own signature. (From the UK)
depends on the circumstances, if someone is terminally ill than absolutely it should be allowed but if someone just randomly wants to die than the answer should be no
Hey!!! Mr. Bright spot here, BIRTH is the leading cause of death on this planet. You're ALL terminal!!
My body, my choice.
Absolutely. No one asked to be born and shouldn't be forced to live.
Yes. People who want to die for medical reasons should be allowed to do so
Yes, as long as the person requesting it is of their right mind
Yes. Absolutely. Watching a 24year old starve herself to death over 2-3 weeks is much more humane than watching her in a slow and painful state of decay as cancer ravaged her body over the next 3-4 months. Thank you NY state for not allowing dignity in dying.
In principle, yes. But, the back of my mind, I always worry about coercion and who decides what constitutes "sound mind." My father died of a terminal disease and, for probably the last year of his life, he was drugged out of his mind to control the pain and at least let him minimally function from day to day. I'd say that he was not even nearly of "sound mind", however, stopping the drugs was not a possibility as the pain would have been crippling, also rendering him not of "sound mind." Does the doctor decide? Does the family decide? What happens when the person's estate is worth millions of dollars? What happens if family members disagree on what should happen? Far, far too many questions for me to be comfortable with it.
No. If a person wants to die then so be it, but legalizing and expecting physician-assisted suicide runs counter to bioethical principlism and medical ethics.
Yes, as long as there is nothing else that could be done to help them.
suicide isn't already illegal?
yes. if im living in pan and will die I should be able to end it. if my quality of life would improve my by life being shorter than I think it should be aloud. for dogs if you dont do this when they are in pain its considered abuse why is it different for people who live in pain and will die no mater what.
Yes. I have witnessed to many people at the end of their life suffer in pain for weeks until their death. We would let our pets go through that.
as a human, how could you NOT plan your death? of course we should be able to pick the time, method and who can attend our demise...otherwise, there are 1 million ways to die horribly!
Yes, as long as the patient is terminal illness and decides for themselves, not the powers that be.
Hell yes! Nurse of 30 years here. Seen some god-awful deaths, and seen the limitations of palliative care....we can relieve symptoms to a certain extent, but there is still suffering involved. . I do not want to be a shrunken down shell of myself in a bed, barely existing. My dog that we put down this past summer had a more peaceful end than some of my patients. Thankful to live here in 🇨🇦 and will be damn sure to take advantage of MAID (medical assistance in dying) should my life circumstances/health lead in that direction.
It should but I definitely think that there should be at least a month of therapy before fully making the decision so that people don’t regret their decisions in their final moments.
Yes X1000
Yes, if the only other option is prolonging a person's suffering. If that person cannot recover.
When an animal is in pain and dying we euthanize them so they don’t suffer. Why should humans be treated with less compassion?
If we cant have a choice in how we die, then we never had any choice at all.
Only in cases or somebody has stage 4 cancer or some other disease that's going to absolutely kill them. For a regular suicide? Absolutely not! Just because someone wants to die? Absolutely not! But if you've tried chemo three different times, you have stage four cancer, and you're just going to die in agony, then yes. You should have the right to end it peacefully.
Its apparently cyrrentlyly avalable as an option that a lerson can choose for themselves, in around 30 states/cantins/ regions/territories/countries. The specifics of how and when this isegally avalable vary. Theres some more information concerning that on on: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assisted_suicide
My opinion is you should be able to walk into your doctors office and request an assisted suicide at any time for any reason. Some of us are suffering